ForumsWEPRWhat would be the best way to unpopulate the earth

257 34048
thecode11
offline
thecode11
241 posts
Peasant

Any answers hopefully humane and by unpopulate i mean lower human populations.

  • 257 Replies
pft
offline
pft
577 posts
Viceroy

The fastest way, but this would also destroy the planet and is currently impossible is to push the earth into the sun.

Just leave things as they are, eventually we will kill everything on this planet and ourselves.

Don't want to give more serious answers, as you could be a super villain.



have Russia blow us all up. they got plenty of nukes, right?


All countries but 3 have signed an agreement of getting rid of their nuclear weapons.

The 3 are Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea.
IceClaw247
offline
IceClaw247
853 posts
Scribe

Epidemic outbreak?
China has the largest population of the world and is actually facing a population crysis. The average age of the population is going up because they are not producing enough children so soon in the future there will be a massive decrease in its population which almost regulates itself.

pft
offline
pft
577 posts
Viceroy

China has the largest population of the world and is actually facing a population crysis. The average age of the population is going up because they are not producing enough children so soon in the future there will be a massive decrease in its population which almost regulates itself.


For awhile china had a 1 child policy. Due to this there was a greater number of males born than females. Not a coincidence most woman would abort female fetus has when having a male they would be better workers also to carry on their names.This makes it harder for males to find a woman to marry and settle down. So each male has to complete with each other and the most richest got picked. This is a sexist view yes but that was the view at the time.

Now they have relaxed the one child rule so you can have 2 now. Also a large amount of women business owners in China. Their population today is 1.3bil, this will be the same by 2050. India will pass China in population by 2030 if India doesn't do something. They are at 1.1bil today. "050 will be at 1.7Billion

There is a huge population problem in Asian countries the worst would probably be Bangladesh. It is the size of of England and Wales combined. With a population of 150million. That makes it 8th most populous and one of the highest densities. By 2050 it will have almost 200Million.

Drink
offline
Drink
1,630 posts
Jester

without straight up murdering everyone, lets have a yearly thing where we go into a Colosseum like in rome times and fight to the death

Fiends
offline
Fiends
114 posts
Shepherd

...War. Lots of war. But seriously, the "best" way, (Definitely not humane) would be to kill useless people, based on their skills. I'm not advocating this, nor do I think it's something that should be done, but the most efficient and "best" way would be exterminating people. There would be a court, with a jury of their peers, where people would be asked questions, and their efficiency in life. Other suggestions would be laws about the amount of children, or killing criminals more often. We could also have gladiatorial games between prisoners, like the Romans did. Again, not advocating any of this, just answering the OP's question.


This, but then all of Mexico's population would be gone x).
gh0sts
offline
gh0sts
870 posts
Farmer

the worst would probably be Bangladesh. It is the size of of England and Wales combined. With a population of 150million. That makes it 8th most populous and one of the highest densities. By 2050 it will have almost 200Million.


Nigeria is the one we should be worried about. Right now the population is about 168 million, but in 2050 it's projected to reach 390 million. This country is a little over twice the size of California in area.
pft
offline
pft
577 posts
Viceroy

Nigeria is the one we should be worried about. Right now the population is about 168 million, but in 2050 it's projected to reach 390 million. This country is a little over twice the size of California in area.


I left out Africa as it already has many problems. There is little we can do to stop population explosion in these countries.It isn't the worst yet. In other countries though we can prevent the problem with population control. It is needed other wise in 2050 the world population will be 9.7 Billion.

A Chart and table set on milestones for every Billion mark met.
OperationNilo
offline
OperationNilo
3,984 posts
Farmer

This, but then all of Mexico's population would be gone x)


Coming from one who has lived in Mexico, I denounce this is an incredibly stupid statement.
Graham
offline
Graham
8,092 posts
Peasant

, as the radiation left behind is brutal and will slowly kill anyone infected that wasn't vaporized by the initial blast.

where a building called "The Citadel" projects an energy field that is able to prevent human reproduction


The preceding bolded words are the same word.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,868 posts
Scribe

That rules out nuclear warfare, as the radiation left behind is brutal and will slowly kill anyone infected that wasn't vaporized by the initial blast.


I don't know, I find this quite humane. I mean, yes some people will be left to deal with the radiation, but for the most part the majority of the populace will be killed swiftly and painlessly.

Gladiator-type events where humans (or animals, elements and machines) kill humans is not humane


How isn't it humane? They can fight for their freedom with these events. Give them a chance to stay alive and live a life.

Maybe it could be a "Half-Life 2" scenario, where a building called "The Citadel" projects an energy field that is able to prevent human reproduction. Currently non-existent, but as a concept it is a painless way of reducing the human population in a slower, non-violent method. Rather than eliminating a chunk of humanity in bloodshed, blocking reproduction would lower human populations rather quickly. It could be moderated by placing a Citadel in specific cities, slowing growth in one place while allowing it to continue elsewhere so as to not erase human existence completely.


That just sounds like a convoluted and unrealistic way of saying "contraceptives"

morality would probably have to be reconsidered, since the amount of premarital intercourse would skyrocket


..and this is immoral how?
Ernie15
offline
Ernie15
13,407 posts
Herald

Make alcohol, cigarettes, and hardcore drugs readily available to every human being on Earth. Legal driving age? Slash it in half in every country. And while you're at it, double the price of food, water (if you want free water, you have to get it from the ocean), and all household utilities. And gun laws? Who needs them?

Now you have an apocalyptic wasteland that will be nearly impossible to recover from. When the world reaches half a billion people, reinstate every one of these laws, and set all prices back to normal. Start over, and encourage people not to reproduce so fruitfully.

You should probably stay in your basement for most of this.

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,868 posts
Scribe

and a conceptual energy field fueled by an unknown substance


I suggest radiation.

The Citadel energy field produces no negative health changes besides sterility.


[Video Game]
Graham
offline
Graham
8,092 posts
Peasant

I'm referring to nuclear radiation, produced by radioactive substances or nuclear fission, and a conceptual energy field fueled by an unknown substance. Nuclear radiation either kills cells or mutates their DNA. The Citadel energy field produces no negative health changes besides sterility.


There is some sort of disconnect here, then.
http://imgur.com/pnDO9u4

You seem to be unaware of the fact that nuclear radiation is inherent in every single thing that exists. This being furthered by the robust theory of energy equalling mass, you know as e^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2 (ambiguously e=mc^2).

It might help to read about what energy actually is, before claiming a field which fundamentally cannot exist.
Graham
offline
Graham
8,092 posts
Peasant

Excuse me, I forgot to put .png at the end of my image.

http://i.imgur.com/pnDO9u4.png

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,868 posts
Scribe

"Some people" means anyone withing several miles of the blast zone. Depending on which highly-populated countries you use this on, hundreds to millions could be affected by the fallout.

"Can" implies choice. In a life-or-death game, you have no choice but to fight or die. The chance is based on being able to kill other people. "Inhumane" means "lacking kindness and compassion" (in a simple definition). You would have to abandon both if you wanted to stay alive and live a life.


Ah good, you missed my point.
Whose idea of "humane" are we to go by?

Except it isn't. If it existed, it could do the job much more efficiently. Yes, the entire idea is a concept, but the thread asked for a way to reduce human population. It didn't say a way that currently exists.


The point of what I said there was that we have something similar that currently exists. And we have no clue of what potential dangers you hypothetical shield could bring.
Showing 196-210 of 257